GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn’t craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.
He was just following orders.
Here ya go.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/eavesdropping_general_reveals_shaky_grip_4th_amend.htm
Defending Spy Program, General Reveals Shaky Grip on 4th Amendment
Editor and Publisher | January 24 2006
NEW YORK The former national director of the National Security Agency, in an appearance today before the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., today, appeared to be unfamiliar with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when pressed by a reporter with Knight Ridder’s Washington office — despite his claims that he was actually something of an expert on it.
General Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of National Intelligence with the Office of National Intelligence, talked with reporters about the current controversy surrounding the National Security Agency’s warrantless monitoring of communications of suspected al Qaeda terrorists. Hayden has been in this position since last April, but was NSA director when the NSA monitoring program began in 2001.
As the last journalist to get in a question, Jonathan Landay, a well-regarded investigative reporter for Knight Ridder, noted that Gen. Hayden repeatedly referred to the Fourth Amendment’s search standard of “reasonableness” without mentioning that it also demands “probable cause.” Hayden seemed to deny that the amendment included any such thing, or was simply ignoring it.
Here is the exchange, along with the entire Fourth Amendment at the end.
***
QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I’d like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I’m no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American’s right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use —
GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually — the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But the —
GEN. HAYDEN: That’s what it says.
QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But does it not say probable —
GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says —
QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard —
GEN. HAYDEN: — unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, “We reasonably believe.” And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say “we reasonably believe”; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, “we have probable cause.”
And so what many people believe — and I’d like you to respond to this — is that what you’ve actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of “reasonably believe” in place of probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?
GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn’t craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.
Just to be very clear — and believe me, if there’s any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it’s the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you’ve raised to me — and I’m not a lawyer, and don’t want to become one — what you’ve raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is “reasonable.” And we believe — I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we’re doing is reasonable.
***
Here’s the Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. “
A new Gallup poll released Monday showed that 51% of Americans said the administration was wrong to intercept conversations involving a party inside the U.S. without a warrant. In response to another question, 58% said they support the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the program.
The construction that Washington, D.C., is bringing to the 4th Amendment is that any “reasonable” search is o.k., but unreasonable ones require a warrant. Furthermore, that a warrant is required to search and seize particular persons and conversations, etc., while massive searches of everybody of everything they say or write or transact, is o.k.
Clearly, the warrant is the method by which the reasonableness of the search is to be guaranteed. That is, the executive needs to go to a judge for the warrant. And, that warrant has to specify the particular person or thing to be searched and seized. No blanket searches and seizures.
He’s correct that the constitutional standard is “unreasonable search and seizure,” and that “probable cause” is only the standard in cases in which the government seeks a warrant. The Framers thought that warrants—used and abused by the British to search people’s homes without facing civil liability (the warrant would give immunity to the officer doing the seach)—were a bad thing that needed to be preconditioned on a high standard (thus “probable cause”) and required a certain level of specificity (the “general warrants” used by the British would not be allowed). But the Fourth Amendment, properly understood, does not require that all searches be preceded by a warrant, or even that there be probable cause before a search. It was liberal judges who conflated the unreasonable search prohibition with the probable cause requirement for warrants—liberal judges also confused the Fourth Amendment with the Fifth Amendment’s autoincrimination protection and created the ridiculous “Exclusionary Rule” from whole cloth.
I’m not saying that the guy is correct that the government’s phone-call-surveilance program meets the “reasonable search” requirement, but he is correct that the Constitution does not require that the government get a warrant first.
There’s a general who is
A. A criminal military coup maker
or
B: A retard who cannot teach himself a oneliner.
The gubmint is free to listen to your phone calls and read your emails ...since these were not around at the time the 4th Amendment was incorporated. (wearing my leftard hat)
And apparently that’s how The Regime reads it:
Justice Department Expands Hunt for Data on Cellphones
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/justice-department-expands-hunt-for-data-on-cellphones/
Obama’s NSA eavesdropping goes beyond that of Bush... after campaigning on the promise of: “ No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me!”
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html
headlines read:” NSA Exceeds Legal Limits In Eavesdropping Program” , “ U.S. phone intercepts go beyond legal limits” , and “NSA Found Improperly Spying on Americans”.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123985123667923961.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://uk.reuters.com/article/burningIssues/idUKTRE53F09820090416
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/justice-dept-nsa-improperly-spied-americans/
GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn’t craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.
He was just following orders.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The best expose on PRISM now comes from the 40 year career NSA employee, William Benny, who became the Director of Intelligence there under Geroge W. Bush. He has gone public since Snowden and detailed the full capabilities of PRISM and what the NSA was doing.
Former Director of NSA Intelligence reveals the full extent of PRISM capabilities. MUST SEE!
Just to be very clear — and believe me, if there’s any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it’s the Fourth.
Obviously they are NOT familiar with it.
“talked with reporters about the current controversy surrounding the National Security Agency’s warrantless monitoring of communications of suspected al Qaeda terrorists”
So, since they were monitoring everyone’s communications, does this mean they view us all as “suspected al Qaeda terrorists” now?
“talked with reporters about the current controversy surrounding the National Security Agency’s warrantless monitoring of communications of suspected al Qaeda terrorists”
So, since they were monitoring everyone’s communications, does this mean they view us all as “suspected al Qaeda terrorists” now?